IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ON ACCOUNT
OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND JURY FOREPERSONS

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 16 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, and La. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 408, 409, 413, and 419 to quash the indictment against him because the systematic underrepresentation of [blacks, women or young adults (age 18-30)] in the selection of Grand Jury forepersons. In support of his motion, Mr. CLIENT states as follows:
1. There was an intentional, discriminatory and systematic exclusion of [select: black persons, women or young adults] from the position of foreperson on the grand jury which indicted the defendant.
2. This parish has a history and pattern of intentional, discriminatory and systematic exclusion of [select: black persons, women or young adults] from the position of grand jury foreperson.
3. [Select: Black persons, women or young adults] constitute a cognizable, distinctive class of persons in this community.
4. Mr. CLIENT is charged with a crime in this Parish. He was indicted by a Grand Jury drawn from the jury lists of this parish.
5. [Forepersons of the grand jury are appointed by the district court judge in this parish.] This is a system open to abuse. As the Fifth Circuit held in striking down the manner of selection in one Mississippi county, "[t]he grand-jury-foreman-selection process in Panola County, in which the circuit judge appoints the foreman on the basis of his own subjective criteria . . . is subject to abuse." See Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1072 (5th Cir. 1991).
6. Mr. CLIENT is a black male. He--as well as the excluded classes of [females and blacks]--is a member of a suspect "class singled out for different treatment." Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d at 1072.]
7. Because of this history of discrimination in the grand jury process, the indictment must be quashed. Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 99 S. Ct. 2993, 61 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1979); Guice v. Fortenberry, 722 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc); see also Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S. Ct. 617, 88 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986).
WHEREFORE, the defendant prays:
(a) That the Court set down this motion for an evidentiary hearing;
(b) That the indictment returned against him be quashed because of discriminatory selection of the grand jury foreperson; and
(c) For such other relief as may be appropriate in light of the constitutional violations shown at the hearing on this motion.
??

(..continued)